Articles Tagged "Statement"

As the latest meeting of the InterAcademy Council's review into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change convenes in Montreal, IPCC chairman R K Pachauri says the past year has been "momentous" for the organisation, and not always for the right reasons. In this week's Green Room, he sets out how and why the panel was established, and argues that it plays a vital role in the global climate policy debate.

I would like to start by saying that I am not deaf to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings - or, in some cases, the existence - of the IPCC.

Such scepticism is inevitable, and has been the case with every area of new knowledge that has burst into human consciousness.

We who are on the side of the consensus must remind ourselves that the evolution of knowledge thrives on debate.

The last year has been a momentous one indeed for the IPCC and climate science, and not always for the most welcome of reasons. The discovery of a mistake in our AR4 report - even as we prepared to start work on AR5 - led to considerable controversy.

It was, and is, inevitable that such an incident would lead to criticism and - quite rightly - to both internal and external examination.

However, at times in the last six months it has become apparent that many people either do not know, or have forgotten, what the IPCC actually is: what it was formed to do, who it reports to, and what its current mandate is.

Updated below by Marc Morano

Statement by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch Before the United States Senate, June 10, 2010

EPA Disapproval Resolution

Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Disapproval Resolution of the carbon regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to start off by applauding Senator Murkowski for her strong leadership on this issue, and I stand squarely behind her effort.

To summarize what has already been laid out today, the EPA has released findings that, one, human carbon emissions contribute in a significant way to global warming; and, two, that global warming – which has been going on for about 10,000 years now — is an endangerment to humans. The EPA’s foundation for its proposal relies on the assumption that both of these findings are true.

Mr. President, I was sorely disappointed – but not too surprised – when I learned that the EPA based it’s “findings” almost entirely on the work by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. I have no problem with much of the science produced by IPCC scientists, but I have a real problem with the way that science is summarized by the political leaders at the IPCC and by the conclusions drawn by those same political leaders in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, which is not a science document. And it becomes immediately evident that the EPA relies very heavily on these political summaries and conclusions rather than actual science produced by the IPCC. Because we now have abundant proof that a wide gulf exists between what the science indicates and what the political leaders at the IPCC pretend that it indicates.

In the aftermath of the failed Copenhagen Climate Conference, revelations of serious corruption in IPCC science, and unseasonable weather in much of the world, the general public and increasingly more media are starting to take a more meaningful view of climate change. Opinion polls in many countries show that an increasing fraction of the public now regards the past century’s warming as being primarily due to either natural or unknown causes, and that a human-induced, or ‘anthropogenic,’ global warming (AGW) catastrophe is improbable. Not surprisingly, there has also been a related erosion in public support for expensive ‘greenhouse gas’ reduction policies.

Consequently, some mainstream media, especially in the United Kingdom, are displaying a new openness to alternative points of view concerning the supposedly ‘settled’ science of global climate change. They are gradually taking notice of the thousands of climate experts who have endorsed open letters, petitions, and other declarations disagreeing with the IPCC’s alarmist conclusions. Some reporters and government representatives have even suggested ‘skeptics’ be invited to take a more active role in future IPCC Assessment Reports and government climate hearings.

These advances have led some observers to confidently assert that the collapse of the global warming scare is imminent and that the war for science-based climate policy is all but won.

Over 250 members of the US National Academy of Sciences have hit back at global warming deniers, warning that attacks on climate science are being mainly driven not by intellectual inquiry but by special interest and dogma.

In a letter published in Science the researchers compare the recent furore around the so-called ‘climate-gate’ stolen emails to the Communist witch hunts of the 50s led by Joseph McCarthy.

“We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels,” they write (letter, open access version). “We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

After a vast cache of emails between climate researchers were stolen from the University of East Anglia and leaked online, a number of people sceptical of climate change declared that these messages proved man-made global warming was a myth. US Senator James Inhofe even implied criminal charges could be forthcoming against the scientists involved.

The new letter says such political attacks on climate scientists are deeply disturbing. It sets out a series of ‘theories’ such as the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years, the Big Bang and evolution that are “overwhelmingly accepted”, even though researchers are very willing to be shown these are wrong. Climate science, say the signatories, now falls into this category.

Image Source - "false alarm"

'The forecasting procedures described in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report violated 81% of the 89 principles relevant to climate forecasting'

Comments on the United States Department of State's U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed.

Statement

Our research findings challenge the basic assumptions of the State Department's Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR 2010). The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods. Furthermore, there have been no validation studies to support a belief that the forecasting procedures used were nevertheless appropriate for the situation. As a consequence, alarming forecasts of global warming are merely the opinions of some scientists and, for a situation as complicated and poorly understood as global climate, such opinions are unlikely to be as accurate as forecasts that global temperatures will remain much the same as they have been over recent years. Using proper forecasting procedures we predict that the global warming alarm will prove false and that government actions in response to the alarm will be shown to have been harmful.

Whether climate will change over the 21st Century, by how much, in what direction, to what effect, and what if anything people could and should do about any changes are all forecasting problems. Given that policy makers currently do not have access to scientific forecasts for any of these, the policies that have been proposed with the avowed purpose of reducing dangerous manmade global warming—such as are described in CAR 2010 Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7—are likely to cause serious and unnecessary harm.

The UN-requested review of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be headed by Harold T. Shapiro, former president of Princeton.

Shapiro, along with 11 others, will analyse “IPCC policies and the procedures by which it prepares its assessments of climate change”, in the wake of the so-called ‘climate-gate’ incident where leaked emails from a British researcher were construed to cast doubt on the science of global warming by some.

“We approach this review with an open mind,” Shapiro said in a statement. “I’m confident we have the experts on this committee necessary to supply the UN with a stronger process for providing policymakers the best assessment of climate change possible.”

The panel was selected by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a group of science academies from across the world. It includes vice-chair Roseanne Diab, executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa, and Mario Molina, Nobel laureate and researcher at the University of California, San Diego (full list below the fold).

Position Statement

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose

This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Click source to read FULL Statement from the Met Office

Statement from Professor Keith A Hunter FNZIC, FRSNZ, Vice-President - Physical Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, Royal Society of New Zealand

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT

The science of climate change has been the subject of recent harsh criticisms in the popular media, with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists. There is fault on both sides of the equation, with the need for absolute transparency of information being the key issue. Adopting a more transparent approach to the dissemination of information will lead to a clearer picture of the facts.

Science has not “proved” beyond all reasonable doubt that human activities are changing the climate. But it has clearly shown that there are multiple lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction, and this view is supported by theories that are well-founded in fundamental sciences like physics.

Commonsense and prudence says we should respond and not ignore the evidence about climate change as it currently stands. The risks of doing nothing are too great.

The mitigation measures suggested for climate change (reduced use of carbon-based fuels, more renewable energy sources, carbon capture and storage, less use of nitrogen-based fertilizers) are all part of a portfolio of approaches that are needed to produce a more sustainable world.

Dear All

The attached pdf is my last entry and if you have any chance of giving that some publicity I would be most appreciative.

Having heard all sides of all of the arguments, it is clear that nobody has a clue about how our atmosphere works. You would not believe the nonsensical information that has been thrown into the various arguments.

Ad hominem attacks of the severest nature by fellow so-called skeptics have proven to be as disgraceful as similar attacks by alarmists.

Also, it appears that nobody understands the difference between cause and effect anymore, routinely switching them over.

Best of luck with the fight against the insanity that has taken over the world of politics as well as academia.

Thanks also for your input over the years.

Best regards,

Hans Schreuder

Download PDF file to see last posting from Hans